[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?

[Skeptic4Sure]

Unless the video shows a flyover then then video can not be claimed to support the flyover claim.

Exactly. So when exactly did anybody, including me, try to use the video to support the claim of a flyover?

Gravy's use of quotes is in support of physical evidence. You have consistently tried to use quotes to deny physical evidence. That is a major difference; one which both you and Lyte have continued to ignore.

Huh? Gravy uses quotes and doesn't even realize what is being said.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Exactly. So when exactly did anybody, including me, try to use the video to support the claim of a flyover?

When you said, "I don't see a plane and there is NO PROOF that the flyover is false based on this video. "

QED

Huh? Gravy uses quotes and doesn't even realize what is being said.

Your comment has nothing to do with my criticism of your point about Gravy's use of quotes in relation to your use of quotes.

 

[Gravy]

Huh? Gravy uses quotes and doesn't even realize what is being said.

I'm sure you can back that statement up with evidence, right?

 

[Arus808]

how do we even know that the "supposed' location of hte video camera is where anyone here says it to be. Can we get a concrete assurance of its placement by someone who works there?

That tree can only be verified, if we know the exact location of that camera. no one here, even killtown has stated concretely that they do.

 

[Gravy]

S4S, since I have so much trouble comprehending quotes, can you provide an exegesis of these quotes from your fellow "Elite Pentagon Research Team" member Craig? Thanks.

About witness and victim Lloyde England, who graciously allowed you to interview him at his home and offered to take you to see physical evidence (his taxi):

"Clearly Lloyd is lying or else the laws of physcis were violated

the only logical conclusion is that his account has been totally fabricated and staged.

Lloyd has somehow been compromised by the perpetrators."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showtopic=78

"At this point the notion that Lloyd was under some sort of mind-control or hypnosis on that day simply cannot be easily dismissed. ...He offered to take us to go look at the cab in the country but we simply didnt have the time and frankly I wouldnt have gone anyway!"


About witness Stephen McGraw, who graciously allowed you to interview him:

"Father Stephen McGraw is a prime candidate for a deep cover agent. What could possibly be a more cush job that would leave you plenty of time for clandestine covert operations than a priest?"

About witness and USA Today reporter Mike Walter, who graciously hosted your party for dinner:

"The other side of the coin is that he may very well be an intelligence operative that was deep cover for the official story and was literally wooing us to keep tabs and soften the official account by befriending us and inviting us into his home."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2114440

Since I don't understand these interpretations by a member of your Elite Pentagon Research Team, please explain them to me.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm sure you can back that statement up with evidence, right?

He's hasn't any evidence for any of the nonsense he posts here. He posts a picture with a challenge and then when he gets his jock handed to him, he throws up his hands and says it's Killtowns picture.

S4S - If you don't have anything to present, please leave the adults alone.

 

[Horatius]

When you said, "I don't see a plane and there is NO PROOF that the flyover is false based on this video. "

QED

I think a major part of the Ctist's malfunction is a complete inability to follow a logical progression of thought. They seem to see all expressed thoughts as a group of stand-alone entities, with no possible connections between them, and they reject any conclusions that may arise from such logical connections.

"Witnesses say that a plane passed north of the CITGO."

"Witnesses say that this plane did not hit the Pentagon."

"Doubletree video does not show a plane flying over the Pentagon."

"The damage to the Pentagon is inconsistent with the North of CITGO path".



They seem to miss all the logical inferences that can and should be made between these statements.

"Witnesses say that a plane passed north of the CITGO."

"Witnesses day that this plane did not hit the Pentagon."

If this plane did not hit the Pentagon, it had to go somewhere else. Over the Pentagon is the only possible option, given the speed and heading of the alleged plane. If this plane did exist, it would be seen in the Doubletree video.

"Doubletree video does not show a plane flying over the Pentagon."

Therefore, the plane did not fly over the Pentagon. Therefore, it did not miss the Pentagon. Therefore, it must have hit the Pentagon, causing at least some of the observed damage.

"The damage to the Pentagon is inconsistent with the North of CITGO path".

Therefore, since this plane must have hit the Pentagon, it must not have passed the CITGO on the north. Therefore, our alleged evidence is worthless.




I think we really need to start a program of hand-holding for the CTists, to get them through the thickets of logic, since they clearly can't manage it on their own.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I find it difficult to believe my question is difficult to answer. Perhaps the gentleman has me on Ignore (though I can't guess a reason), so would someone be kind enough to repost it? Muchas smooches.

Skeptic4Sure:

For the eighth time:

The screen name you are presently using may be "Skeptic4Sure," but have you ever used the screen name "JohnDoeX" (not to be confused with "John Doe X"), "Killtown" or "Merc?"

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I find it difficult to believe my question is difficult to answer. Perhaps the gentleman has me on Ignore (though I can't guess a reason), so would someone be kind enough to repost it? Muchas smooches.

Skeptic4Sure:

For the eighth time:

The screen name you are presently using may be "Skeptic4Sure," but have you ever used the screen name "JohnDoeX" (not to be confused with "John Doe X"), "Killtown" or "Merc?"

Circumventing possible ignorage.

ETA: Perhaps you should have added, "Failure to reply to this will be taken as an answer in the affirmative."

 

[Thunder]

so let me get this straight. there actually WAS a plane that hit the Pentagon????...... this guy is refuting a huge part of the 9-11 conspiracy myth. i hope he realizes that.

 

[gumboot]

how do we even know that the "supposed' location of hte video camera is where anyone here says it to be. Can we get a concrete assurance of its placement by someone who works there?

That tree can only be verified, if we know the exact location of that camera. no one here, even killtown has stated concretely that they do.

From the aerial photograph Killtown posted, I believe his placement is pretty accurate. The traffic passes behind the tree, and there is no tree at all near those carparks, so it has definately been cut down at some point.

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

Wrong tree.

BTW, reported.

Did you bring some proof?

Oh no the tree? The tree did it.

Got any new stuff or are you witnesses now debunked?

 

[bob_kark]

For the eighth time:

The screen name you are presently using may be "Skeptic4Sure," but have you ever used the screen name "JohnDoeX" (not to be confused with "John Doe X"), "Killtown" or "Merc?"[/b]

Eight times without a direct answer? You'd almost think he's hiding something.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

From the aerial photograph Killtown posted, I believe his placement is pretty accurate. The traffic passes behind the tree, and there is no tree at all near those carparks, so it has definately been cut down at some point.

-Gumboot

I'm pretty sure he has it too far to the right of the overhead pic; unless they changed that parking lot to have the same sidewalk and whatnot to the one on the left. Again, w/o knowing when the GE pic was taken it's all conjecture anyway.

 

[T.A.M.]

So lets summarize:

Doubletree Video:
1. Higher frame rate that 1 fps. Shows no sign of a plane flying over the Pentagon, and the angle of the video wrt Pentagon, would show such if it existed...therefore, no flyover plane.

2. A tree was visible below the area of interest, and to the right, in the video taken 5 YEARS AGO, and that tree no longer exists.

Earth Shatter Evidence:
1. The dynamic duo of LT and S4S, are going to present us with irrefutable evidence that a plane flew North of Citgo and either (a) flew over the pentagon - now not likely to carry much weight with the doubletree video, or (b) hit the pentagon, and then get into an argument with the professionals who analyzed the Pentagon crash site because they believe the damage to the Pentagon COULD NOT have occured as it did, if the plane (AA77 or otherwise) approached from North of Citgo.

Anything to add?

TAM

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

S4S, since I have so much trouble comprehending quotes, can you provide an exegesis of these quotes from your fellow "Elite Pentagon Research Team" member Craig? Thanks.

About witness and victim Lloyde England, who graciously allowed you to interview him at his home and offered to take you to see physical evidence (his taxi):

"Clearly Lloyd is lying or else the laws of physcis were violated

the only logical conclusion is that his account has been totally fabricated and staged.

Lloyd has somehow been compromised by the perpetrators."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showtopic=78

"At this point the notion that Lloyd was under some sort of mind-control or hypnosis on that day simply cannot be easily dismissed. ...He offered to take us to go look at the cab in the country but we simply didnt have the time and frankly I wouldnt have gone anyway!"


About witness Stephen McGraw, who graciously allowed you to interview him:

"Father Stephen McGraw is a prime candidate for a deep cover agent. What could possibly be a more cush job that would leave you plenty of time for clandestine covert operations than a priest?"

About witness and USA Today reporter Mike Walter, who graciously hosted your party for dinner:

"The other side of the coin is that he may very well be an intelligence operative that was deep cover for the official story and was literally wooing us to keep tabs and soften the official account by befriending us and inviting us into his home."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2114440

Since I don't understand these interpretations by a member of your Elite Pentagon Research Team, please explain them to me.

Aw, come on Mark Roberts you know what they are. Those quotes are considered to be "speculation" or "thinking out loud". Opinions aren't facts, you of all people should know that Mark Roberts.

Of course, you know a majority of those were made *before* the "Elite Pentagon Research Team" broke off and decided to do additional research in the form of a second trip...you know that right? You know that when a good portion of those "speculative theories" were made, they were made when ONLY Loose Change was going to cover the research and footage obtained. In other words, Craig's comments were his own and were made before this part of the "Elite Pentagon Research Team" decided to make their own presentation with their own research, complete with their own conclusions, and "accusations". This will be their final word on the matter.

It's ok to have initial impressions or feelings about something or someone, and then change them based on new information or a lack of information. You know that right?

So why don't you wait and see what they put out and who they accuse of what, before you try and hang anybody on their words.

Mark Roberts, just because you add a bit of benevolence to these interviewed witnesses to tug at heart strings, doesn't mean it is an effective debating tool.

 

[WildCat]

About witness and victim Lloyde England, who graciously allowed you to interview him at his home and offered to take you to see physical evidence (his taxi):

Thus foiling the NWO's clever plot to assassinate the entire Elite Pentagon Research Team™ at one fell swoop down by the junk yard... damn those pesky kids and their brilliant minds! (shakes fist)

 

[Horatius]

It's ok to have initial impressions or feelings about something or someone, and then change them based on new information or a lack of information. You know that right?

It's okay to have impressions of people, and to even change them based on later information.

What's not okay is to have assinine impressions like "So-and-so might be an agent" and "Such-and-so may have been hypnotized".

If you were smart (which you're not), you'd know that, wouldn't you?

 

[R.Mackey]

"Clearly Lloyd is lying or else the laws of physcis were violated
the only logical conclusion is that his account has been totally fabricated and staged.

Lloyd has somehow been compromised by the perpetrators."

(from http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showtopic=78)

Aw, come on Mark Roberts you know what they are. Those quotes are considered to be "speculation" or "thinking out loud". Opinions aren't facts, you of all people should know that Mark Roberts.

[...]

It's ok to have initial impressions or feelings about something or someone, and then change them based on new information or a lack of information. You know that right?

So then, this means:

1. The apparent bald-faced accusation that Lloyd (to pick one) is a shill, hyp-mo-tized, or otherwise an evil person in on the plot, is in fact not an accusation

2. You admit you have no proof that he is, not even evidence, but that the statement above is sheer speculation (your word, not mine)

3. You admit that you have presented unsubstantiated opinion without declaring it as such, and you expect the reader to be able to determine which is which

This raises a follow-up question. Given your admitted propensity to make wild accusations without merit or even the intent to do so, are any of your claims anything other than speculation? Care to clear that up?

Otherwise, taking you at your word, a rational person would conclude that every single thing you said is just "thinking out loud" and can be safely dismissed as pure fantasy.

 

[Skeptic4Sure]

It's okay to have impressions of people, and to even change them based on later information.

What's not okay is to have assinine impressions like "So-and-so might be an agent" and "Such-and-so may have been hypnotized".

If you were smart (which you're not), you'd know that, wouldn't you?

You know I didn't make those comments right?